Gallagher starts with a kernel of truth, but completely misreads its import. You're right that single parents can raise happy kids--but it is much, much harder and less frequent, as a host of studies show. I also think it is hard to dispute that, in general, two opposite gender parents are the optimal scenario--having a parent of each gender helps kids relate to authority of both genders and develop more nuanced relationships. There are things that fathers just cannot do (especially for their daughters) and so too for mothers and sons, fathers and sons, etc.

That said, two parents are far better than one, and since we already permit single parenting (how could we not?), gay parenting wouldn't be a decay from that prevalent reality. Indeed, it will be a significant upgrade, especially if it helps stabilize gay homes that are already parenting. Conservatives are right to recognize that not all parenting relationships are equivalent and that the decay of the family in the US is a real issue, especially for people at the bottom of the income ladder. But they are wrong to see gay marriage as a threat when it is part of the solution.

presumably gallagher believes that being married without children is pointless and shouldn't be allowed....

There seems to be a growing delusion among conservatives that their right to free speech somehow carries a responsibility that we take them seriously, no matter how insane their rant. Many of our elite chattering class share this delusion - see George Will, David Broder - and insist we put science on equal footing as superstition, bigotry on equal footing as 'traditional values', and of course, pundits on equal footing with people of expertise.
The end result is steady parade of faux experts who rarely get things right and a political party that revels in it's own mental illness. I doubt we could have arrived at one without the other.

Kinda makes you want to smash a watermelon, doesn't it?

Divorce is the only threat to marriage. This point needs to be made every time.

I'm looking at you, Mel Gibson!

So her solution is to prevent the state from protecting kids who are adopted by same sex couples? Only protect the hetero couples' kids?

I'm not in favor of gay marriage. I'm not against it either. Since I don't plan on having one (I lack the principal requirement), it's really none of my business.

If children need both a mother and a father that badly, what punishment is sufficient for the government officials who sent mothers and fathers away from their children for years on end, and sometimes to die, in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The argument that yeah, children are better off in a two-parent household with parental figures of opposite sex, is a disingenuous argument. Children are better off in families with comfortable incomes and good neighborhoods too. Are we going to legally require that?

Divorce is the only threat to marriage. This point needs to be made every time.

Yes, but that's a horribly unpopular thing to say to Americans. So is Jesus' commandment that the rich must leave their wealth behind to follow him...that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for the wealthy to enter heaven.

Making your audience uncomfortable isn't what these religious group types are about. They aren't interested in spreading true faith, just profiteering from a vast swath of easy targets.

"I am not the only one Mr. Rich is calling a bigot."

It is obvious to me, though clearly Gallagher would disagree, that the popularity of a position is not an argument in favor of its rightness or wrongness. Indeed, she seems to be arguing that the most pernicious effect of gay marriage (apart from destroying families and life as we know it) is that opponents will be considered bigots. Has it occurred to her that, gosh, maybe they are bigots?? (Answer: no. That never occurs to anybody.)

Same-sex marriage definitely does have consequences. About that Gallagher is right. But they aren't negative consequences as she and her fellow bigots believe.

Bigotry parading or justified as "traditional values", or religious belief, is the last refuge of those who don't believe in equality. POC, Jews, Asians, Women were all treated as second-class citizens, and dire consequences were also predicted should they no longer be discriminated against.

Here in Massachusetts, one of the most Roman Catholic states in the country, same-sex marriage has only brought stability and happiness to same-sex couples and their children. Lightening hasn't struck, the pillars of civilization have not crumbled, nor has anyone been turned into a pillar of salt.

The "gathering storm" is more like a gigantic chorus singing "We Shall Overcome" not a fire and brimstone visitation from a non-existent god.

"plenty of happy and healthy children are raised by single parents or parents of the same gender."

Weak and clouded tea. It doesn't really help the argument.

My neighbor bought a new Rapture-Mobile the other day. He reminds me every day how pleased he is with his purchase. I’m happy for him. Imagine my surprise when I saw him the other day on TV warning viewers of the perils his Rapture-Mobile choice faced so long as we continued to allow alternative choices on our roads. What a moron.

I'm still waiting for people on the right to explain what the dire consequences of homosexuality being accepted as an uncommon but normal variation of human sexuality will be. They keep hinting at these scary, scary consequences to all of society, but they can't actually name any if pressed. All they can come up with is that they'll be under social pressure to not say rude things about gays and lesbians in public, not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and .... that's about it. I haven't heard them say that there will be any other consequences.

Weak and clouded tea. It doesn't really help the argument.

There have been several studies that demonstrated that children raised by two gay parents turn out exactly the same as children raised by two straight parents, and no studies that show that being raised by gay parents is damaging to children. What about that doesn't help the argument?

How many is plenty? What percentage? Is the 'data' the same for both single parents and gay couple parents? I thought the stats were overwhelming that children of 2 parents do much better.

When are Maggie Gallagher and Kathryn Jean Lopez gonna hook up?

Because that would be hot.

Gallagher believes children "need a mother and a father."

And yet, she herself was unmarried when her first child was born and remaineed a single mother for ten years. Her greatest success has been to turn her strident acrimony towards other single mothers and gay marriage into a shilling for "Marriage, Inc.", where wingnut welfare and even our tax dollars have funded her alleged preeminence as a "marriage expert." (You always need a supply of scare quotes handy when writing about right-wing anything these days.)

The only reason this person gets any attention is because hate is very profitable these days.

There have been several studies that demonstrated that children raised by two gay parents turn out exactly the same as children raised by two straight parents, and no studies that show that being raised by gay parents is damaging to children. What about that doesn't help the argument?

That is exactly correct. But if anyone is interested in how the children of gay and lesbian parents feel, they might want to check out this website.

The ad shows one actor saying, "I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job."

This is the one that really puzzled me. So - the doctor is opposed only to treating married gay patients?

emotionally consistent, economically stable households are more likely better for children. Gender essentialism about biological sex difference and "authority figures" (should have male and female parent, etc.) actually promotes aspects of society that should be overcome rather than reinforced.

I love it when people like Maggie Gallagher argue that marriage is the end-all-be-all, that it's healthy for society, individuals and children. However, because marriage is so strong and essential they only want heterosexuals to have access to the blissful delight that is marriage. They also completely ignore the fact that there are plenty of bad, unhealthy heterosexual marriages out there that are bad for society, bad for individuals and devastating environments to raise children. But in her mind even the worst, most abusive heterosexual marriage is inherently superior to a same-sex relationship. If that's not bigotry I don't know what is.

I can't imagine that someone with such an unhealthy fixation on the importance of marriage-- and preventing other people from getting married in the name of protecting marriage-- could have a very good or healthy marriage herself.

Is the 'data' the same for both single parents and gay couple parents? I thought the stats were overwhelming that children of 2 parents do much better.

Actually, what's true that, statistically, children with two parents do better than children with one parent. What is not true is that those two parents need to be opposite-sex parents. Having two male parents or two female parents living in the household is just as good as having a male and a female parent.

Frankly, the statistics are compelling enough that we should probably be encouraging single parents to create collectives and other joint-household arrangements since it's pretty clear at this point that parental gender doesn't matter as much as having a sufficient number of interested adults in the child's life. Two sisters who are both single mothers would probably be doing their kids a big favor if they set up housekeeping together. Humans aren't actually meant to be raising their young alone -- we've put ourselves into a very strange position in both historical and evolutionary terms by insisting that children should be raised in isolation by one or two adults.

Yeah, because if you let gay people marry, they're gonna start having lots of gay children, and pretty soon they're gonna outbreed us!

Then where will we be? Ha? Where?

Mary Gallagher: "I believe that marriage matters because children need a mother and a father, and I have spent the last five years warning that opposition to gay marriage will be treated as bigotry."

Fear not, Ms. Gallagher. Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom (R-East Honolulu) agrees with you wholeheartedly, and is working hard to convince people accordingly -- no doubt starting with his three ex-wives, his several children by each of by them, and his current girlfriend, right-wing journalist Malia Zimmerman, who abandoned her own husband and child in order to take up with this fucking hypocrite.

Well if kids need a mother and father I think they should work for a ban on single parenthood. They should also work to banning divorce.

What about some way to make it that unmarried women can't get pregnant. Oh wait - these guys likely aren't big on contraceptives either. Oh well.

The other overlooked part of this is the idea that all couples must have a kid or two. Is my marriage illegitimate because my wife and I decided not to have children? Should the state annul our marriage because we didn't carry out what Gallagher and the wingnuts have decided is the ne plus ultra of exchanging vows?

I'm frankly disgusted by the continual effort of people such as Gallagher to frame marriage in a way that completely excludes us, although my actual outrage is reserved for those loving same-sex couples who are regarded as foundationally immoral by public scolds.

Last part should have read: my outrage is reserved *on behalf of* loving same-sex couples etc.